PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Rangel: Guilty


Dr. L
11-16-2010, 06:43 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rangel_ethics_trial

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Larry Margasak, Associated Press – 34 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Rep. Charles Rangel, once one of the most influential House members, was convicted Tuesday on 11 counts of breaking ethics rules and now faces punishment. The veteran New York lawmaker immediately denounced the verdict as unfair.

An ethics panel of eight House peers deliberated over two days before delivering a jarring blow to the 20-term New York Democrat's career. Rangel was charged with 13 counts of financial and fundraising misconduct.

The conviction also was another setback for Democrats who lost control of the House to the GOP in the midterm elections.

Rangel, a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is not expected to resign. He is 80 years old and remains a dominant political figure in New York's famed Harlem neighborhood.

He was forced to step down last March as Ways and Means chairman when the House ethics committee, in a separate case, admonished him for taking two Caribbean trips paid for by corporations.

At his one-day trial on Monday, Rangel was reduced to pleading for a postponement — arguing that his lawyers abandoned him after he paid them some $2 million but could afford no more. The panel rejected his request, and Rangel walked out of the proceeding.

Rangel reacted bitterly to the conviction.

"How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?" Rangel said in a written statement. "I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions."

He called the panel's findings "unprecedented" because there was no rebuttal evidence. He complained that the rejection of his appeal for more time violated "the basic constitutional right to counsel."

Rangel, echoing a statement he made in August in a speech to the House, added, "any failings in my conduct were the result of "good faith mistakes" and were caused by "sloppy and careless recordkeeping, but were not criminal or corrupt."

New York Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who attended Rangel's fundraiser in August while campaigning to clean up New York politics, said, "It's obviously a sad situation to experience.

"It's important that people have full faith in the integrity in public service, so it's painful to watch," Cuomo said Tuesday at a press event near Rochester. "But we'll see what happens at the end of the process."

Only last spring, Rangel wielded significant power in the House from his position as the main writer of tax legislation. He was not present Tuesday when the verdict was announced.

The full ethics committee will now conduct a hearing on the appropriate punishment for Rangel, the silver-haired, gravelly-voiced and sartorially flashy veteran of 20 terms in the House.

Possible sanctions include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.

The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.

He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.

The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office — and storage of his papers — at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.

The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct.

However, Rangel was not accused of using his influence to pass or defeat legislation.

During Monday's trial proceeding, the chief counsel for the House ethics committee, Blake Chisam, told the jury that Rangel could have received permission to solicit nonprofit foundations. However, he could not have used congressional stationery and staff as he was found to have done.

Rangel had previously acknowledged some of the charges, including submission of 10 years' worth of incomplete and inaccurate annual statements disclosing his assets and income.

He also admitted he initially did not report his rental income from a unit he owned at the Punta Cana resort in the Dominican Republic.

An apartment in Harlem's Lennox Terrace complex housed the Rangel for Congress and National Leadership PAC political committees, when the lease terms said the unit was designated for living purposes only.

Chisam had told the jury that other tenants were evicted at an increasing rate for violating the same lease terms.

Tonus
11-16-2010, 08:31 PM
An ethics panel of eight House peers
I agree that they qualify as his peers. I don't know that I'd use the word "ethics" in a sentence relating to members of congress, though.

In any event, he'll get a wrist slap and possibly lose a committee position or two, but I wouldn't even count on that.

Edmaster
11-16-2010, 09:47 PM
Love that the general attitude from his peers is "it's a shame he got caught" rather than "it's a shame someone like that was allowed to stay in power for so long."

Grunthos
11-17-2010, 12:17 AM
You all realize that for all his protestations for more time, his party was desperate to get this wrapped up and put to bed before the next Congress begins?

As in, before the new majority gains control of the ethics committee. Now, the investigation, verdict and punishment will be safe behind the double jeopardy rule.

His punishment will make a slap on the wrist look like murder one, just watch.

Tonus
11-22-2010, 02:57 PM
You all realize that for all his protestations for more time, his party was desperate to get this wrapped up and put to bed before the next Congress begins?
Looks like Maxine Waters (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/22/bombshell-evidence-may-make-waters-an-ethics-nightmare-for-dems/) may not be able to get the same deal.


Bombshell evidence may make Waters an ethics nightmare for Dems


Apparently, the Charlie Rangel ethics trial was just the warm-up act. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/politics/20waters.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss) reported over the weekend that the House Ethics Committee suddenly postponed the trial of Maxine Waters on ethics violation because it found more evidence of direct intervention by her office to benefit the bank in which her husband owned a substantial interest. According to new e-mails uncovered by the committee, her chief of staff directly coordinated with other members of the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of OneUnited:A newly discovered exchange of e-mails led the House ethics committee on Friday to delay its trial of Representative Maxine Waters (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/maxine_waters/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a California Democrat accused of helping steer bailout money to a bank in which her husband owned shares.

The e-mails are between Mikael Moore, Ms. Waters’s chief of staff, and members of the House Financial Services Committee, on which Ms. Waters serves. The e-mails show that Mr. Moore was actively engaged in discussing with committee members details of a bank bailout bill apparently after Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The bailout bill had provisions that ultimately benefited OneUnited (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/politics/01ethics.html), a minority-owned bank in which her husband, Sidney Williams, owned about $350,000 in shares. ..

The subcommittee’s original report found that in early September 2008, Representative Barney Frank (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/barney_frank/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of Massachusetts and the committee’s chairman, told Ms. Waters not to get involved with any issues involving OneUnited and that Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The case against Ms. Waters hinged largely on a series of e-mails between Mr. Moore and OneUnited, which may suggest that Ms. Waters’s office continued to lobby on behalf of the bank, although Mr. Moore has argued that he was primarily on the receiving end of the messages.

A person directly involved in the investigation said the new e-mails could show that members of her staff continued to work on the bank’s behalf.

“It may directly contradict a bit of Maxine’s story, if not the actual facts, the way she has told it,” said the person, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the trial.
Waters may not be the only Democrat in trouble if this is true. The e-mails used loaded but generic terms like “small bank language,” a code for the known interest Waters had in OneUnited. After all, Waters had already discussed her interest in the bank with Frank, and the nudge would be unmistakable. Everyone on that committee knew that the “small bank” that held the most interest for Waters was the small bank in which her family held so much interest.

That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for “small bank” assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/17/oneunited-received-more-preferential-treatment-than-first-disclosed/), got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money. The preferential treatment the bank received — unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money — seems oddly coincidental to Waters’ status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf.

How long will it be before the House takes up this case? One would presume that the Democrats would want to conclude the ethics trial before the end of the lame-duck session in order to have a majority on the House floor for Waters’ eventual punishment, but the news of the e-mails may have them hoping they can get everyone to forget about it forever. That’s not likely to happen, but it may be a little more likely that a future Ethics committee may be looking into the actions of other Financial Services Committee members.

The GOP is licking its lips at the prospect of inundating Pelosi's "most ethical congress ever" with investigations. Democrats had hoped to get a number of ethics cases dealt with before January, so as to have as much control over the 'penalty phase' as possible.

The Rangel case was pretty damaging. The Waters case could have been much more low profile if it had been dealt with now. Expect the GOP to try to turn the Water's case into a media circus if they get the chance, as a sort of opening act to the next legislative session.

Grunthos
11-23-2010, 12:45 AM
It's amazing what you can find when someone makes you actually LOOK.


And you'll note my prescience with regard to Rangel's "punishment." Censure? MAY have to repay the taxes he owes (no penalty, of course)?

Martha Stewart got jailtime, for supposedly impeding the Fed's ability to discover that she had done nothing wrong. Rangel gets a threat of a nastygram (The House still has to vote on ANY punishment) for much greater malfeasance.